Printable View
Hi all,
My wife comes shooting with me on occasion, especially when we are on vacation. She has a Canon Xti and a 70-200 mm f/4, to which is often added the 1.4x converter for a bit of extra reach. She still finds this a bit short and is contemplating a longer lens. She is considering either the Canon 300 f/4, which would often be used with the 1.4x or the 400 f/5.6. Does anyone with experience of both these lenses have a recommendation for one or the other? And if so, why?
Thanks!
Bruce
I have now had the 300/4L IS for two and a half years and love it. Though still far from long enough even with the 1.4x about 30-40% of the time to be honest. I think the AF is fast enough though not as fast I believe as the 400/5.6L on its own. I do like the IS function here too. However, if the 5.6 had IS I would probably have gone for that lens in the first place, despite being a stop slower. Just about all my bird pics are with the 300/4 and 1.4x combo, occasionally with the 2x.
If she is not trying to photograph birds in flight most of the time then the 300f4IS plus 1.4x TC might be the better option. Image stabilization makes a big difference. The 300/TC combo works also great as semi-macro lens due to the short minimum focusing distance.
Thanks Axel and Akos, Is the 400 a better BIF lens? Is the focus speed that much faster than the 300 with 1.4? I'm sure that either of these two is waaay faster than the 1-400, which is what I currently use, and what she occasionally uses.
I have not used neither the 400/5.6 nor the 100-400L but I suspect and also heard/read form people's accounts that the 400/5.6 is fastest of the three. However, the 300/1.4 is no slouch at all if you asked me. Even if you can prefocus by hand it speeds things up too. Don't discount the IS part as Axel said. It can save an image I reckon. It would be great if someone would know of an official test of AF speed and acquisition of the 300/4+1.4x combo v 400/5.6. Just for the record. :)
Based on my experience when I had the combo on a 20D body 400 f/5.6L focuses way faster than the 300 f/4 + 1.4X TC combo. The 400 is also sharper at f/5.6 but at f/8 they are close with 300+1.4TC having more fringes (watch out for those white egrets!:D). The 300 on its own is very fast and razor sharp but with TC I didn't like it that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ákos Lumnitzer
I don't think there is an official test, how are you going to test AF speed in a repeatable and quantitative way? :confused: but I in general TCs slow down the AF due to loss of light/contrast.
I had made thought over this issue long back and I had bought the 300 f4 IS after doing the test of all three. I had selected the 300 F4 IS due to the IS function. It is a sharp lens. Slap a 1.4x TC and it works very well. Since you already have a 1.4x TC, it is an easier decision to go for the 300mm.
The 300mm also has a minimum focussing distance of 5 feet. So it is good when the subject is close to you. You can also use it as a macro lens.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
I have a 300 F4 and find it very good, even with the 1.4. The best attribute is the light weight which makes it a very good carry around lens, great for walking safaris.
Thanks everyone for your help!
Cheers!
Anytime an extender is added, whether on a Canon or Nikon, the AF will slow down - about 50% with a 1.4x and 75% with a 2x. So for BIF, the 400 f/5.6 will have much faster AF than a 300 with 1.4x. The IS on the 300 is a big plus for stationary subjects.
Either lens is an excellent choice!
Bruce, I don't believe you mentioned the type of photography of interest to your wife. If BIF are her primary interest, the 400mm f/5.6 is a better choice because of its faster focusing capability. If, however, she wants a lens that will serve her well under a variety of circumstances, I recommend the 300mm f/4L IS lens. I have the 300mm lens and love it. I've photographed birds (stationary and in-flight) and many other subjects successfully with and without the 1.4x extender. Its true that the extended slows the auto focus, somewhat but this can be overcome with practice. The 300mm without the extender is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and is no slouch with the extender. I went through this exercise a couple of years ago, debating between the two lenses. I believe I made the right decision. Hope this is helpful.
Thanks Don and Roger, Your comments are indeed helpful. The photographic interest is rather broad and wouldn't exclude birds in flight, but would also include macro subjects and stationary birds and other animals. I think the scales are tipped definitively in favour of the 300.
Cheers!
Bruce
I am no engineer so I don't know how one would test the AF speed. Let's just say for me personally what I have and experienced is sufficient enough to say the 300/1.4x is very quick in AF acquisition; most certainly quicker than any lens I had used (owned) previously. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
I am also aware that TCs slow AF speed down. ;)
Bruce, one other consideration for the 300mmL IS is its short focusing distance of 4.9'. While it certainly is not considered a macro in the traditional sense, I have used mine to capture some wonderful images of insects, plants and the like while hiking in pursuit of other critters. I'm able to make images while maintaining a greater distance from the subject and create a nicely blurred background. The IS feature is very useful while maintaining focus on close subjects.
roger
Great posts.
I own and use all these lenses, the 70-200 F/4 with the 1.4X which does not appear to either slow down or affect IQ on this wonderful lens also focuses quite close.
The 300mm F/4 L IS is also a wonderful lens which as aforementioned is a great semi macro lens and with tubes added a good macro lens. I use it without the 1.4X for closer BIF shots and it is brilliant but the 1.4X slows it down.
The BIF lens hall of fame winner is the great and portable 400mm F/5.6 which when the 8.5M to infinity set on the lens is blindingly fast and accurate to focus and works beautifully on my MKIII with the 1.4X at 560mm f/8 which still gives me good autofocus on the MKIII.
